A response I tell myself over and over is the wheel made the decision and that is that, it can't be changed. It kind of takes the personal opinion out of the equation.
I don't know what to do with this, especially seeing as in the past on the forums there were threads criticizing 'computer' aided design that hinted at the notion that the computer was making the decisions for the designer... a daisy wheel, in this application, is that mindless computer, making decision for the designer, without regard to function, use, materials at hand, solar orientation, etc.
I guess that was my point in questioning DL about his windows.
DL - I think it is great that you plan on making your own windows, but the point is irrelevant as most windows can be had in any shape and size you want from many manufacturers. What I was driving at was the location and size of the windows in relation to use of the building - were heights calibrated to occupants eye level as they might be related to exterior views? Did solar orientation play a role, if relevant, to window location and design? etc. etc. - or did the location and size come about by some geometric convention derived from the use of the wheel (which is what you did)...
As I mentioned - I'm fascinated by all systems of scale / layout / proportion. I'm curious where one draws the line at which decisions are 'blind' to the system, (be it 4x8 sheets, 4x24 panels, 8x8 posts, golden sections, wheel geometry, etc.) and which are made by the designer - in reference and respect to all those other factors that may be important (or not).
